Standing Committee F

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Criminal Justice and Police Bill

James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I welcome you back to the Chair. You may not have spotted from reading the Hansard report that yesterday, at least in theory, the Committee considered 24 clauses, 41 Opposition amendments, 27 Government amendments, 13 new clauses and nine Government new clauses that covered 13 pages of closely printed script. Today we are due to consider 16 clauses, 36 amendments and four Government amendments, and tomorrow, amazingly, we have 53 clauses and schedules to consider, including six Government amendments.
 This week's programming is bringing our proceedings into disrepute, because the Opposition are being given no opportunity to consider the Bill. The nation will be watching us, because we are dealing with important matters, on many of which there is broad cross-party agreement, but we are not being given the opportunity to consider them. 
 Is it possible to reconvene the Programming Sub-Committee once again, so that it can consider asking the House for an extension of the out date to 13 March, not least because an early election now seems less likely?

Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. I join the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) in requesting you to reconvene the Programming Sub-Committee. He used the word ``considered'', but the truth is that little was considered yesterday: many changes were made at the guillotine, without debate. Given the extreme unlikelihood of an early dissolution, we now have the opportunity to rethink the timetable so that we can consider the rest of the Bill in an orderly fashion and without delay. Indeed, completion within the next fortnight seems entirely possible.

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. Has the Minister approached you to give an estimate of how many clauses he expects not to be debated today? Yesterday, 25 clauses and 44 amendments, all on important matters, were not discussed. If he has not approached you, would you consider using your power to reconvene the Programming Sub-Committee, so that the matter can be reflected on and the date put back?

Charles Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. The Committee will recall that, at the most recent meeting of Programming Sub-Committee, the Government offered not to impose a guillotine last night at 10 pm or today at 1 pm, on an understanding about the clauses that we should have reached—we would have had to sit through the night yesterday and this evening—but no such agreement was made.
 The Committee will also recall that there was no Division on the clauses that were agreed to at the end of yesterday's sitting. The Committee will further recall that a substantial amount of party political badinage took place yesterday, which was not encouraged by Labour Members. Finally, the Committee will recall that, as I said yesterday evening, although some Opposition new clauses were in order, they were designed to make various party political points prior to the election. We believe that the Committee has had adequate time to consider the Bill, and we shall carry it through. That is the Government's position.

Roger Gale: I do not propose to allow the Committee to get into a prolonged debate, because the matters that concern the Chairman—that is what points of order are about—are clear. The sittings of the Committee and the guillotines within those sittings were a matter for decision by the Committee, following a second meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee. For the moment, therefore, they are set in concrete, and the Chairman has no power or right to interfere. I have made it abundantly plain, and I know that Mr. Hood, my co-Chairman, shares this view, that if the Committee wants a further sitting of the Programming Sub-Committee, the Chairman is here to serve.
 If, this morning, the usual channels agree—that would be the most courteous way forward—to hold a further sitting of the Programming Sub-Committee, I am prepared to convene one immediately after the guillotine falls this morning. That is not a matter for me. It is entirely a matter for agreement between the usual channels and the parties. If there is no agreement, and one party formally requests a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee, I shall have to exercise my judgment. I would prefer to think that, as is custom and practice, the usual channels will manage to hammer this out in the Corridor outside. 
 I shall make one other point, as these issues have been raised, and as there has been reference to matters of record. I have not had the opportunity to read the Hansard reports of yesterday's proceedings in Committee, to which I was not privy. I have, however, had drawn to my attention exchanges that took place on the Floor of the House while I was absent on parliamentary business yesterday. I note that a reference was made—although not by a member of this Committee—to filibustering in this Committee. I wish to place it plainly on record that Mr. Hood and I, as Chairmen, and all the members of the Chairmen's Panel, both deprecate acrimony—although we cannot altogether control it—and, more importantly, will not tolerate filibustering. 
 So far as I am concerned, there has been no filibustering—at least, up until yesterday, for which I cannot speak, but I am sure that Mr. Hood would not have tolerated it. We should now move to the business of the day before we waste any further time.

Clause 70 - Arrestable offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Oliver Heald: The clause makes two additions to the list of arrestable offences: kerb crawling and failing to stop after an accident. However, the Police Federation has long argued that the offence of failing to stop when requested by a constable—I believe, in uniform—should also be added. Clearly, it should be possible immediately to apprehend someone who fails to stop when requested to do so by the police. What is the Minister's view? In a letter to me, Fred Broughton, chairman of the Police Federation, said:
 ``Power of Arrest: non-stop injury accidents—We do not believe these proposals extend far enough and are seeking through the `Review of Road Traffic Penalties' an amendment to include a power of arrest in relation to `Fail to Stop for a police officer in uniform' including a mandatory period of disqualification for 6 months. We have yet to receive acknowledgement of our concern in this area by the Home Office.'' 
It is for the Committee to consider whether it is right to add these offences. I believe that it is. Kerb crawling is a serious and worrying matter to residents in particular areas, and a difficult offence to deal with, as is failure to stop after an accident. 
 Failing to stop when requested to do so by a constable is also a matter of importance. How would the Minister respond to the concerns expressed by the Police Federation?

Charles Clarke: The two key issues are kerb crawling—I will not repeat the arguments about that, which were implied in what the hon. Gentleman said—and failure to stop after an accident. The Police Federation was right to raise the potential offence that it mentioned in the context of the road traffic penalties review. I am sorry that it has not had an acknowledgement. Consultation is still taking place. I believe that the initial consultation period ended at the end of February. The review is carefully examining all the relevant issues, and will certainly take the Police Federation's view seriously. There is broad consensus, including cross-party consensus in the House, for reform in those areas, but the precise form that it should take will depend on the consultations.

Oliver Heald: This is a similar situation to that which occurred yesterday. The Government are choosing to make it an offence to fail to stop after an accident, so they are anticipating the review in that case. Given that failing to stop when requested to do so by a constable is also a very important matter, would it not be possible to fast-track that as well, rather than having to wait until goodness knows when for a complete readjustment of the relevant law?

Charles Clarke: The kerb crawling offence is obviously not related to the issue of road traffic penalties, although I agree that one can argue that failing to stop after an accident is. I will consider the possibility of tabling an amendment on Report about the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised. The Police Federation was correct to highlight the subject through the review of penalties. I hope that we will have Government proposals for legislation in due course.
 Our approach will be to try to work on a consensual basis across Parliament. Some Conservative Members have been involved in relevant debates. For example, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) thinks that the Bill does not go far enough on such issues. We are keen to adopt a cross-party approach, as there is wide concern in the country about some of the terrible implications of road accidents as a result of excessive speed. I hope that the Committee will allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: We have no objection to the clause standing part of the Bill, but if I ask the Minister some questions about it, I shall not need to ask them on the next clause, which, like this one, brings into legislation certain offences that currently have a different definition.
 Why are three offences alone being brought into the new definitions under clauses 70 and 71 and characterised as arrestable? I can think of many other offences that could arguably be so classed. We are not considering sentencing, but a sentencing review is due to report in two months' time, so it seems odd to have plucked three offences from the cupboard and made them arrestable. 
 Why are we doing this now, when a review of the law of sexual offences is being considered by the Government and others? The Home Office has managed the consideration of a range of such offences for a long time. If we are deciding which offences should continue to exist, which should be repealed, which added to, which made arrestable, and what the penalties should be, we ought to consider sexual offences at the same time. We have had a review of sexual offences and are to have a review of sentencing, so I object to the Government's Christmas tree approach, in which they pick out a little bit of an agenda. 
 The same question applies in the context of road traffic legislation. I share the view held by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), having always thought that we must be tougher on some road traffic offences. That is true in relation to excess speeding, failure to report an accident and other actions that sometimes appear relatively minor but can cause serious or fatal accidents. For example, if people turn incorrectly at a junction—normally left when traffic is not allowed to turn left—and catch someone lawfully crossing under a green light, that sometimes has terrible consequences. 
 Announcements have been reported from the Home Secretary and other Ministers in recent days about a new consideration of road traffic law, weighing up the alternatives in terms of penalties, sentencing and so on. We should be doing the job coherently, not plucking one offence and making it arrestable, when it was not so designated under the most recent legislation, which was 12 years ago. 
 Although the proposals are unsatisfactory, it is not possible to object to them, but why could we not have done away with these provisions of part IV and waited until we had an intelligent approach to the issues? This is exactly the worst sort of legislation, as we do not have broad consideration of offences, where they come in the league table or the sentencing options. I understand that civil servants may say that the opportunity should be taken, and that there is public concern about kerb crawling, failure to stop and report an accident and the importation of indecent or obscene material, but there is public concern about another 68 things, and I do not understand why we have plucked three and not considered them all together.

Crispin Blunt: I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). In the middle of consideration of a Bill, it is wrong to table proposals that sit outside a proper framework of review that is under way as we speak. We wonder why the House is falling into disrepute, but it is because of the Government's tendency to propose legislation in that fashion. It was once described as government by press release. The Government say, ``Here is a little problem, but we can say that we are doing something about it by tacking it on to a Bill in an inappropriate place while the main issues are being properly reviewed in context.''
 Although a perfectly good case can be made for including the matters in the Bill, the hon. Gentleman's argument is extremely strong. This is quite the wrong way to legislate. When that is considered with the fact that the whole of part III received no scrutiny in Committee, it is little wonder that the institution of which we should be proud to be a part is wholly incapable of doing its job and is not serving the people properly by scrutinising or passing legislation that has been considered in context.

Roger Gale: Order. I thought that I had made it plain—I clearly did not, so let me do so now—that avenues are open to all hon. Members to discuss how the Committee shall proceed from now on. It would be helpful if they would use those available avenues, rather than making the same point over and over again. I understand the political point that is being made; I do not have a view on it, it is simply a matter of fact. As I said at the beginning of the sitting, there are other forums in the House within which that can be discussed and other avenues open to the Committee it is chooses to take them. The matter should be allowed to rest there.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for the comments that do not relate to unhappiness with the specifics. By the way, the specifics have not come from the back of a civil servant's envelope; nor are they ill considered in themselves. For example, on the kerb crawling provision, hon. Members from all parties have mounted a wide campaign for a long time, to which we are trying to respond. However, I acknowledge to the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that, in principle, their case for an holistic approach to law reform is powerful. In general, that is what the Government are seeking to do by establishing reviews. However, in each case, it must be judged whether the best is the enemy of the good.
 A strong argument is made that kerb crawling has been of concern for a long time. It is not merely in the general category of sex offences, which involve a whole series of forms of legislation. The Government have sought to give a high priority to issues of prostitution by, for the first time ever, allocating resources—grants from the crime reduction programme—to deal with them. Straying into clause 71, the current climate on issues of pornography and children is changing—rightly so, and we are keen to encourage that. We think that such provisions should come into effect as soon as possible. 
 So while I accept the thrust of the principled argument that has been made, I urge the Committee not to make the best the enemy of the good. I will discuss with my colleagues whether we can find a way to act more holistically for a new Parliament. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey frequently—and, in my opinion, rightly—argues for codification of the law. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told the House during the past week that he fundamentally accepts the thrust of such arguments and wants to move down that line. I agree with the hon. Member for Reigate that esteem for the House and for hon. Members will be the greater the more that we approach such matters in an holistic way, but that does not argue against the provisions, simply because the best should not be the enemy of the good.

Simon Hughes: We are willing at any time to have discussions with the Minister and his Labour colleagues—whether or not they are in government—and with our Tory colleagues to try to reach maximum agreement, so that whichever party forms the Government can introduce a Bill that deals with all those things together. If we could have a process that precedes draft Bills, that would be helpful.

Charles Clarke: To give the Committee an insight into government, I can inform hon. Members that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House makes strong arguments of the type that are being made here when she deals with such issues. She, too, is keen to have such a process. That is a product of the work of the Modernisation Committee, which we set up, and that is how we should consider the situation in the future.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I apologise, because I am conscious, having heard the tail end of your remarks, that I might be trying your patience. However, this is, as I am sure you will appreciate, an entirely fresh point of order, of which I have only become aware this morning. You and other members of the Committee will have noticed that I slipped out briefly while my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire was making his opening remarks. I did so because I had received an urgent message that a communication relevant to the Bill had arrived in my parliamentary post this morning. That communication is from an important body—the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would respect.
 The institute wanted to make some serious points about a series of clauses. Unfortunately, the letter has arrived too late, because it concerns those clauses that we dealt with last night, when Mr. Hood was chairing the Committee. However, I thought that it should be placed on the record that, even had the communication arrived in my post yesterday—and one might say that the ICA should have sent it out earlier—we would not have been able to discuss many of the points, because a large number of the clauses about which the ICA expressed serious concerns were those that we did not get the chance to debate.

Roger Gale: I have already ruled on that. It is abundantly plain. The Programming Sub-Committee made a recommendation that was carried by this Committee. The recommendation set out the order of consideration and the programme for consideration of the Bill. I do not know how many times I must say this: there is an option available, through the usual channels, to reconsider that if it is considered necessary to do so. The broader aspect of the matter must be considered by the Modernisation Committee and may be raised by hon. Members on the Floor of the House. I do not expect it to be raised in this Committee again. Clause 71 Importation of indecent or obscene material

Clause 71 - Importation of indecent or obscene material

Question Proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Oliver Heald: The clause adds to the list of serious arrestable offences the importation of indecent or obscene material. To what extent would that allow Customs and Excise to obtain disclosure of material from overseas in respect of the importation of indecent or obscene material? To what extent would it improve or increase the powers available to Customs and Excise as regards interception of communications?

Charles Clarke: The additional powers that the clause gives to the police are, first, to enable customs officers to delay notification of an arrest to another party or to a solicitor, thus reducing the likelihood that valuable evidence could be destroyed by associates of the person arrested. Secondly, it will allow those arrested to be questioned for longer periods before charge. Thirdly, it will assist customs officers to obtain search warrants when paedophile material is detected, and enable them to apply for a greater range of material than would otherwise be the case.
 The powers are not greater than those given to the police in domestic legislation, but as a matter of policy, customs officers intend to use their additional powers only in the case of the importation of indecent material involving children, or of extremely exploitative and therefore potentially obscene material involving adults. 
 The powers are not unusual—the child pornography offences under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and the obscenity offences under section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 are already scheduled as serious, arrestable offences in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Extending that to importation offences is consistent with other measures taken to control the circulation of child pornography and other seriously abusive material. I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question, but I may not have done.

Oliver Heald: I understood the Minister's points, which are set out in the helpful explanatory notes. However, there were two points on which I sought clarification. We have international agreements with other countries, which enable us to obtain disclosure of information. We discussed that earlier in our proceedings. By classifying the offence as serious and arrestable, will we obtain greater access to information from other friendly countries? What difference will that classification make in matters such as interception and intrusive surveillance?

Charles Clarke: I am sorry. I should have answered the second question. The hon. Gentleman asked it before, and I answered it by omission, as it were. I do not think that the classification would make a difference to interception and the issues that arose under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. Neither do we think that it would make a difference to the disclosure powers of Customs and Excise in relation to overseas forces, although it does give greater powers under PACE. Thus the answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is also no.
 The extension of powers is as I set out. It is not really a matter of disclosure or interception. Nevertheless, I hope that it will be possible to agree that clause 71 should stand part of the Bill.

Oliver Heald: Yes, of course it will.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and I are happy for the clause to stand part of the Bill: it is not the best possible, but it is not exceptionable. I want, however, to flag up an issue that I presume is being dealt with—although not, apparently, in public. Is it right to continue with, effectively, two different policing agencies: the police service and Customs and Excise? I realise that that is a big question, but I know from constituency and other experience that the involvement of two different bodies, with different general objectives—in the case of the police, catching criminals and seeing them punished and, in the case of Customs and Excise, catching the goods and seeing them impounded—does not always make for consistency.
 I speak with some caution because although, like all hon. Members, I represent police officers, I also represent the headquarters of Customs and Excise, just over the river. For reasons that have been explained by the Minister and the Home Secretary, involving the increasingly international nature of the relevant activities, we should think again about which authorities would be the best to detect and deal with offences relating to importation and exportation, and to deal with goods that are evidence of, or related to, offences. 
 What I am drawing attention to needs to be considered within the realm of the debate about the future of policing. The Government have been holding discussions with police representatives. It would be nonsense for that debate not to include examination of whether in the century ahead the development of one integrated organisation would be more appropriate than maintaining a separate body, called Customs and Excise, to police our shores.

Charles Clarke: We have discussed the question at length. It is an important issue involving a wide range of agencies that work together: Customs and Excise, the National Crime Squad, police forces and the security services, MI5 and MI6. I am not sure whether the latter is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—everything seems to be. The cross-cutting review that was conducted under the comprehensive spending review led us to the conclusion that those organisations should work together closely. Major progress has been made in that respect.
 I am not making a party political point when I say that one thing that surprised me when I began my present job was how recently joint work in any of the relevant spheres had begun. For example, the threat assessment produced by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which is another in the group of agencies working together, is this year at the stage of a third publication—some of it fully public. We have taken the view that a major reorganisation and restructuring is not the best approach at present. I can see a logic to it, but it is best to focus on the intelligence assessment, and to adopt joint tasking and joint approaches, as happens now. That is producing substantial progress in co-operation and I think that it is the right way to proceed. 
 If the hon. Gentleman talks to representatives of the National Crime Squad about its relationship with Customs and Excise, or, for that matter, to representatives of Customs and Excise about its relationship with the National Crime Squad, he will hear about a positive, collaborative and supportive relationship, which has been reinforced by senior secondments between the services to build joint working. Of the three options—doing nothing, reorganising everything into a global service, and developing better co-operation—we have chosen the third, with the active and enthusiastic support of the services concerned. Co-operation is necessary, but we do not think that expending the bureaucratic energy that would be needed to reorganise the entire process would be the most intelligent course of action.

Simon Hughes: I am encouraged by the Minister's response. It would be helpful if he could put as much as possible of the conclusions of the review in the public domain. Co-operation, and whether there will be one or more agencies, is a matter of general public interest. It will be a worthwhile subject for consideration in a forum in the House—perhaps a Select Committee. Important structural matters about the delivery of law and order around our shores and internally are worthy of as much discussion across party lines as possible.

Charles Clarke: I shall reflect on putting matters in the public arena. We are dealing with significant enemies and how much information is made public is a difficult matter. I am keen to encourage a debate on our strategy for serious organised crime. I should welcome the Home Affairs Committee investigating such matters. I have briefed the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on the matter, following a visit to his constituency.
 I am happy to brief either the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire or the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey on what we are doing. I agree that it would be good to hold a general public debate about such matters. The document CJ 2010 included several references to such matters. In fact, I think that it had a whole chapter on them. If members of the Committee want briefings, I shall be happy to hold them, but I shall think carefully before putting more detailed papers in the public arena, for reasons that I am sure they will understand.

Oliver Heald: I want to flag up my concern about the suggestion. HM Customs and Excise is a specialist organisation with a particularly valuable ethos. Having prosecuted in the past for Customs and Excise, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police, I know that Customs and Excise is expert in the work that it undertakes. It is well served, and I am not sure that I would want to roll it into the police. I urge a note of caution.

Charles Clarke: That is true, which is one of the major reasons why I decided to follow the course that I have outlined. Not only does Customs and Excise have powerful professionalism and expertise, but the other agencies to which I have referred have similar features. The hon. Gentleman is right. He will know that a review is taking place into how prosecutions are carried out by the Crown Prosecution Service and Customs and Excise, and one issue raised in CJ 2010 was to ensure that the criminal justice system is properly addressed. Given his professional experience, he will know that such matters are extremely technical and complicated. I hope that I have not strayed too much from the clause, but I wanted to respond to the points that have been made.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: My private conversation with the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman was to ascertain the whereabouts of the Opposition Whip who I had hoped would be here to listen to what I have to say. Happily, he is engaged in other business in the House and I should be grateful if the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire would convey my comments to him. The Committee Clerk has pointed out that something that I said earlier was nonsense. Those were not her words, they are mine.
 In an endeavour to be helpful, I said that I was willing to convene the Programming Sub-Committee after this sitting. If we were to do that, however, it would have no effect because I had forgotten that this is not a usual sitting day. The Committee has agreed to end proceedings at 1 o'clock and it will not be sitting between 4.30 pm and 7 pm. To implement any change to our sittings, there would have to be a debate. Further consideration may take place only tomorrow morning and during a guillotined sitting tomorrow afternoon. Were we to go down the route that I had, in an attempt to be helpful, implied that I was willing to go down, there would be no possibility of implementing any decision that was taken. 
 I am not advocating this, but an hon. Member could seek to convene a further meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee only if I formally suspended this sitting for the duration of the sitting of the Sub-Committee. We could then reconvene, debate any decision that had been taken and proceed. I am happy to note, having checked, that all members of the Sub-Committee are present this morning. I am not advocating that course of action. I wish only to clarify the constraints under which we are working.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. If I were to move a motion that the Committee suspend, would it be subject to a Division?

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman cannot move a motion to suspend the Committee. As I have tried to suggest, my personal view is that the matter should be properly resolved through courteous discussion between the usual channels. If the usual channels say to me that they wish to seek a suspension with a view to reconvening the Sub-Committee, I will consider that at the appropriate time. I am seeking to clarify the position, so that the usual channels may make their noises to each other. Clause 72 Use of video and telephone links for decisions about detention

Clause 72 - Use of video and telephone links for decisions about detention

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 214, in page 58, line 28, leave out `not reasonably practicable' and insert `extremely difficult'.

Roger Gale: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 215, in page 58, line 36, leave out `not reasonably practicable' and insert `extremely difficult'.
 No. 246, in page 58, line 39, after `inspector', insert `who is present at another police station'. 
 No. 252, in page 58, line 39, after `a', insert `secure'. 
 No. 247, in page 59, line 15, at end insert— 
`(d) a recording shall be made of telephone conversations relating to the carrying out of the review between the officer carrying out the review and persons in the police station where the arrested person is held (including any representations made orally by telephone to the officer carrying out the review under subsection (4) below)'.
 No. 248, in page 59, line 17, leave out `section' and insert `subsection'. 
 No. 253, in page 59, line 39, after `communicate', insert `in a secure manner'. 
 No. 251, in page 59, line 40, at end insert— 
 `(1A) The functions mentioned in subsection (2) may only be performed under the provisions of this section by an officer who is not present at the police station where the arrested person is being held if it would not, in all circumstances, be reasonably practicable for an officer present at that station to perform those functions.'.
 No. 254, in page 60, line 24, at end insert— 
`(c) a recording shall be made of any video-conference relating to the carrying out of the review between the officer carrying out the review and persons in the police station where the arrested person is held (including any representations made orally by means of the video-conferencing facilities to the officer carrying out the review under subsection (7) below)'.
 No. 249, in page 60, line 37, after `in', insert `a'. 
 No. 250, in page 60, line 38, leave out `section' and insert `subsection'.

Simon Hughes: We have now come to provisions on detention and arrest. Our amendments are to clause 72, which, in turn, proposes amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It is a controversial clause and I give notice that we shall vote against it. It is controversial not only from our perspective, or that of a libertarian—I understand that the police are equally unhappy about it. Therefore, its inclusion in the Bill surprises me and I seek an explanation from the Minister. The Government often say that things are done because they are necessary to support the police and help their work, but one of the representative bodies of the police—the Police Federation—strongly opposes the proposal.
 The first amendment is to line 28. As drafted, the proposal would change the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to include the use of a telephone procedure for review of detention in cases in which a person has been arrested but not charged. The procedure would apply if it is 
``not reasonably practicable for an officer of at least the rank of inspector to be present in the police station where that person is held to carry out any review of that person's detention that is required''. 
Committee members will remember that, for good reason, there are general police and criminal evidence powers, and extended powers under the Terrorism Act 2000, under which people may be detained for investigation subsequent to arrest and prior to charging. That is perfectly normal, although we could debate the length of that period of detention. However, it is perfectly reasonable to have additional powers in serious cases; allegations of terrorism fall into that category. The question is, how does one extend that period, or judge whether a person should be further detained? At the moment, that must be done by a police officer of senior rank coming and reviewing the detention there and then, in front of the detainee. 
 A fundamental issue is involved that could affect us all. When someone is arrested and held for questioning, European and international convention rights govern how he must be held in custody, the limit of that custody and the protections to prevent exploitation by the Executive, the police and people acting on behalf of the state. It is therefore important to guarantee people's rights when in custody. It seems to me and to others that those rights should not be eroded for the administrative convenience of the police. 
 A police officer of sufficient rank may find it difficult to reach the place where the person is held. If the police officer usually has that difficulty, places where people are detained should be arranged in the knowledge that sufficient police will be available at any one time in the vicinity, to use yesterday's phrase, to come to conduct the review. 
 A second batch of reasons relates to whether an adequate review is possible by telephone. Judges may make injunctions following a telephone request. However, a telephone review is, by definition, even using video conferencing and other facilities, not only a less acceptable method than a face-to-face review of a person's detention, but, from the point of view of the prisoner, an entirely different kettle of fish. Instead of a detainee seeing and knowing that he is face to face with the person conducting the review, the review is conducted by a remote, impersonal and possibly invisible person; the detainee may not be able to see him and he may not be able to see the detainee. If the defendant cannot speak face to face to the reviewing officer, the potential for abuse of the defendant's circumstances seems great.

Stephen McCabe: The explanatory notes state that the provision can be used only in limited circumstances. Has the hon. Gentleman assessed the number of officers, whom he would like to be pounding the beat, who would be taken off the beat to perform what he regards as an administrative convenience for the police? The debate relates not only to protecting the rights of detainees, but to effective use of police time.

Simon Hughes: I understand that, but in the case of normal policing, rather than Terrorism Act stuff, there are increasingly fewer custody suites and an increasingly smaller number of police stations where people are held, certainly in my borough and other urban areas. One of the reasons why fewer have been made available is to reduce the number of police officers who engage as custody officers. I am working on the basis that, under the proposed system, when a person is in custody in one of those places, a permanent source of police officers will be on duty there.
 I am not sufficiently familiar with the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, but if there are rural police stations in the non-urban part of her constituency, up on Dartmoor, I presume that they will not have custody suites. Certainly that is generally so. People are not held at such police stations, but at the nearest county or town custody suite. In my urban constituency, that would obviously be much nearer than it would be in a rural or partly rural constituency. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not believe that it is sufficient to tilt the balance in the other direction. 
 The amendment is an attempt to alleviate an unacceptable position: to make it less unacceptable. The amendment would not make the Bill acceptable if it were accepted, but it would improve it. It would remove the words ``not reasonably practicable'' and insert the words ``extremely difficult'', to provide a much higher threshold for the police to have to pass before they used the telephone to conduct a review under section 40 of PACE. 
 Amendment No. 215 would do the same in relation to video conferencing facilities. The advantages of the current arrangements are that a face-to-face check of a person in custody by an officer of a relatively senior rank allows such a person to be confident that a serious review is being conducted into whether he should be detained further. If people receive only a telephone call or are talked to by video link, they may feel that the police are only going through the motions and not taking the deprivation of their liberty seriously. 
 Who would be willing to monitor whether the police always used such procedures for a good reason and not merely for their convenience? As in any organisation, one member of the police would not want to undermine the argument of a colleague, who had decided that the interview could be conducted more easily over the phone, simply because it would take an hour of his time to go from A to B and back. 
 An additional benefit of a face-to-face review is that junior custody officers feel more supported, and are less open to unjustified allegations that can be made by people in custody against police officers. If a senior officer is present to check the cell and talk to the prisoner, it is more likely that the custody officers would be assured that everything was in order and that they would not be subjected to unjustified charges. 
 A face-to-face review also allows the condition of a person in custody to be seen. There have been far too many deaths and injuries among people in custody. There is great anger that the Government have resisted initiating a general review of that. I have called for such a review, and many people would be encouraged if it were initiated. Today, I repeat my call to the Government to agree to such a review.

Charles Clarke: On the narrow but very serious point of deaths in custody, will the hon. Gentleman concede that the incidence has decreased because of measures that the police have introduced? The situation is better than it was before. Of course, there is still a great deal to do, but I hope that he will acknowledge that progress has been made.

Simon Hughes: I do acknowledge that, and am pleased about it, because it is a difficult matter in which the public must have confidence. By definition, one is dealing with a situation in which only a few people will know what has occurred, which makes it different from a fight in a street or in a pub. I am not undermining the commitment of Ministers to ensure that the regime is better. It is improving, but there is a chronology of cases in which families—often, but not always, from the black community—feel extremely aggrieved and believe that they have been badly treated by discriminatory practice.
 We all know that, sometimes, people are not willing to discuss matters, yet they may communicate by body language. A person may have an injury, which may not be visible through video conferencing, let alone over the phone. A face-to-face interview would show whether somebody is lame, clutching a hip or in pain. A prisoner may be more confident to speak to somebody sitting opposite him or her than to a person down the phone who has never been seen before, or a person at the end of a modern telecommunications system at the other end of the country. Such an interview will also protect the police, because they will be reassured that an accurate record of events will be made. The Minister knows that I am in favour of the video recording of interviews, and I understand that that is the general plan of the Government and the police. 
The police think that the provisions are detrimental to prisoners' rights and believe, according to the briefing that I have received,
``in protecting the rights of a prisoner, that decisions as to review should be carried out on a face-to-face basis; thereby alleviating any complaint or suggestion that due consideration has not been given to continued detention. Years of using PACE''— 
in terms of its procedure, not the paperwork— 
``has brought a level of trust and fairness into the Criminal Justice system.'' 
 That point is consistent with the Minister's recent intervention. 
 There is far less argument now in the courts about what did and did not happen in interviews. That is due to recording, which provides much better safeguards and satisfies people that the process is followed fairly. The police argue that the process has been challenged much less frequently because there are considerably fewer opportunities to abuse it. They view the clause as watering down a tried and tested system. That would not be in the interests of the police or prisoners. 
 Like the Liberal Democrats, the police would argue for the deletion of clauses 72 and 73. I hope that the amendments will be accepted and that the Government will concede that it would be preferable to withdraw the clauses so that the Bill can proceed without them.

Charles Clarke: I want to clarify the hon. Gentleman's position. He has made it clear that the Liberal Democrats will vote against clause 72, unless it is amended. Although I am not intending to do this, if amendments Nos. 214 and 215 were accepted by the Government, would he vote for the clause?

Simon Hughes: I have already dealt with that question: the Liberal Democrats would still seek to remove the clause, because we believe that it is not possible to amend it adequately. The amendments would alleviate its failings, and if the Government were to accept them, the Bill would be improved. I anticipate that the Government will narrowly win the vote on the clause, but I always live in hope that some Government Members might be excited to a bit of temporary opposition in order to support the police on this occasion.

Nick Hawkins: I support amendments Nos. 246, 252, 247, 248, 253, 251, 254, 249 and 250, and I shall begin on a happy—and, perhaps for me, unaccustomed—note of cross-party agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I received a helpful note from the Minister in advance of the debate stating that he is prepared to accept amendments Nos. 248 to 250. I put on record my thanks to him for that.
 I also want to pay tribute to an unsung hero. Mr. Gale, you know that the Opposition frequently lack resources. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) also knows that, as he experienced a period in opposition before entering Government, which is a unique experience among the Labour members of the Committee. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I, as well as our Back-Bench colleagues, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, are assisted by some able researchers. The best of them is a young man called Matthew Gullick, whose father is a distinguished circuit judge. He has been helping us on the Bill, and it is always a pleasure when amendments that he has drafted are accepted by the Minister. That is especially true now, as today's brief from Mr. Gullick states that the Minister's officials had drafted the Bill infelicitously and that his draft was better and corrected some drafting errors. He has said that in respect of all the amendments that the Minister has accepted. On this occasion, the score is three goals to nil to young Matthew Gullick, who shares my passion for sport. 
 I have begun on a happy note, but I now want to talk about the details.

Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: I want to make a point before I give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he, too, has able researchers. Indeed, yesterday, he referred to one of them going off to run some investigative journalism, so I am only evening up the score.
 It is a matter of principle to conclude that something is seriously wrong when organisations as politically diverse as Liberty, the Police Federation and the inspectors central council all think that the Government are wrong.

Simon Hughes: Concessions by the Government in relation to drafting amendments are always welcome, but concessions on substantive amendments would be much more welcome. I am waiting for that to happen, and time is running out.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is right. I detected—and I am sure that he did, too—a scintilla of uncertainty when the Minister intervened at the end of his remarks to suggest that the Government might at least consider accepting some of the amendments, in a desperate attempt to hang on to a bad clause. If the Police Federation, the council of inspectors—I shall go into detail about their views—and Liberty think that it is bad, and all do so for similar reasons, something must be seriously wrong. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right that the Government need to think again. We intend to return to some of those issues on Report.
 I shall refer in detail to some of our amendments that the Government have not yet accepted, although, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, we still live in hope. Amendment No. 246 would ensure that the inspector carrying out the review was present at a police station. Otherwise, strictly speaking, the clause would in theory allow officers to carry out reviews of detention on a mobile phone while walking around on their beat or, perish the thought, while driving, although no police officer should do that, as it is evidence of careless driving. In relation to telephone and video reviews of detention, surely the officer concerned should be sitting down and concentrating on the important matters with which he is required to deal. 
 Amendments Nos. 252 and 253 would require the telephone and video links used to be secure because, sadly, as we all know, if mobile phones or cordless analogue phones are used, people can listen in with unscrambling systems. We all know of appalling instances of telephone conversations involving the highest in the land or matters of national security being intercepted. We are certain that that has not been thought through, so we require reassurance from the Minister. We need to know how the video signals will be transmitted. Is there any way in which interception could be blocked? A great deal more detail needs to be supplied. 
 Amendments Nos. 247 and 254 would ensure that a recording was made of the telephone conversations and video conferencing relating to the review. That is plain common sense, but it is not in the Bill. What happens if, after the review, there are differing accounts of who said what to whom? If a two-way telephone or video link is used, there will be no witnesses. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who is temporarily absent from the Committee, and I—and other Committee members not currently present who are lawyers—will have dealt with cases in which what was said, what was done and what was reviewed were major issues in trials. We do not want cases to be lost because of that. 
 Amendment No. 251 would ensure that video reviews could happen only when it was not reasonably practicable, in normal circumstances, for an officer present in the station to conduct a review in person. The test appears to be in place for telephone reviews, under proposed new section 40A(1)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but it is not in the proposed new section relating to video reviews. Can we assume that it is intended that video reviews will be used more generally or on a routine basis? Will the regulations contain guidance on the matter? We need to know. There is no doubt that inspectors are against it. I shall not go into detail about the precise words used by the general secretary of the inspectors' central committee or the comments made by Fred Broughton, the general secretary of the Police Federation. This is a bad, unsatisfactory clause, and we shall want to press several of our amendments.

Oliver Heald: Further to your earlier advice to the Committee, Mr. Gale—

Roger Gale: Order. We are in the middle of a debate on an amendment. Is this a point of order?

Oliver Heald: I am sorry if I did not say that it was a point of order; that was certainly my intention. On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I would like to move formally that the Programming Sub-Committee do reconvene.

Roger Gale: I would like to consider that. We are in the middle of a debate, which we should complete before we go any further. The usual channels have not indicated to me whether this request is one of consensus or dispute.
Mr. Heald rose—

Roger Gale: I should like to be given a little more information to enable me to consider the matter properly. The debate on the amendment should be completed while other matters take place. Perhaps some signals will come to me from some quarter or another during the course of debate.
Mr. Heald rose—

Roger Gale: I will not take any further points of order on that issue, but I am prepared to return to the matter later.

Charles Clarke: First, on a nice point, I should like to add my congratulations to Mr. Gullick on the work that he has done in advising the Opposition. For a long time I considered myself the general secretary of NUPA—the national union of political advisers—during a period of opposition when I advised the then Leader of the Opposition. I am second to none in paying tribute to the sterling work of political advisers of those in opposition. I genuinely think that their work is good and important, and the situation is even better if the proposals put forward show respect for it.
 The clause would allow reviews of the continuing need for detention before charge—which must be undertaken by an officer of at least inspector rank—to be carried out by telephone. That may happen under the condition that it is not reasonably practical for an appropriate officer to be present in the relevant police station to carry out the review or for the review to be conducted using video conferencing. The provisions will enable reviews of detention and other custody-related decisions to be carried out using video conferencing. It will also allow for certain reviews to be carried out over the telephone, but only—I emphasise—in extreme circumstances. Safeguards and supporting procedures are already included and our general position is that the amendments would detract from the flexibility and workability of the arrangements.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister is talking about flexibility. However, would he bear in mind that the central committee of police inspectors, the Police Federation and Liberty have all said that one cannot sacrifice the principles of the police and criminal evidence legislation—known to all lawyers as PACE—for pure flexibility? The measures represent a retrograde step, backing away from PACE.

Charles Clarke: I was wrong to take that intervention. I am dealing with those points as I go through, and it will help the Committee if I give way at the end as usual.
 The argument has been advanced that the police position on these matters is that taken by the Police Federation and the inspectors council. The actual position of the police is that the Association of Chief Police Officers supports the proposals, which it perceives as providing a helpful option. The Police Superintendents Association supports the proposals because it supports inspectors' reviews by video; the association made that clear in its consultation response. 
 As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, the Police Federation opposes many of the proposals because it believes that the review should be undertaken in person. The Police Federation worries that the increasing use of modern communications technology represents a threat to police numbers and traditional police methods. We do not think it right, however, to ignore the development of technology. 
 I shall not comment further on amendments Nos. 248, 249 and 250, which I hope that my colleagues will agree to support. The clause would allow certain reviews of the continuing need for detention before charge to be carried out by telephone. The reviews must be carried out by an officer of at least the rank of inspector and must normally take place no later than six hours after detention was first authorised and then at intervals of nine hours. A detention for longer than 24 hours requires the authority of an officer of at least superintendent rank. It is not proposed to make the telephone option available for superintendents' reviews. 
 The clause allows the review to be carried out by telephone only when 
``it is not reasonably practicable for an officer of at least the rank of inspector to be present in the police station'' 
and it is not reasonably practicable to use video conferencing for the review. Such situations might arise when, for example, the only inspector available to conduct the review is called away in an emergency. 
 Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 would replace the words ``not reasonably practicable'' with ``extremely difficult'' as the test of attendance or video conferencing. I do not think that the practical difference would be great, but I am not persuaded that the change would be for the better or even in the direction that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey wants. A review by telephone with no visual contact between the reviewing officer and the detainee is not satisfactory, for the reasons that he mentions. Such reviews are better than no review, but they should be reserved for circumstances in which there is no reasonable scope for alternatives. That is why we are proposing the term ``not reasonably practicable''. 
 ``Extremely difficult'' is a more subjective alternative. It gives more scope for enabling the use of the telephone review in a wider range of circumstances. That is why it should be rejected. It is not a big issue, which is why I was exploring the hon. Gentleman's attitude. The practical difference is not great, but the phrase ``not reasonably practicable'' is a better way of dealing with it. 
 On amendment No. 246, it does not seem reasonable to restrict the review of detention, in the extreme circumstances in which reviews of detention are necessary, to a reviewing officer present at another police station. Where an officer is prevented from attending the police station where the detainee is held—by transport difficulties or other circumstances—we believe that the most expeditious method should be used. 
 On amendments Nos. 247 and 254, where any review or other decision-taking process is carried out by telephone or video conferencing, there is provision for any record required to be made by another officer present at the police station. There is no requirement for reviews carried out at police stations in the standard manner to be taped or video recorded, and there are obvious reasons for introducing such requirements where these processes take place remotely. 
 As regards amendment no. 251, we do not wish to restrict the scope for carrying out decisions about detention by video conferencing to circumstances in which it would not be practicable for an officer present at the station to perform the relevant function. PACE offers scope for any officer to act as a custody officer where circumstances demand it. We want to ensure high-quality decision taking and access to specialist expertise by enabling certain decisions to be taken remotely. There may be an officer present at the station who could adopt the custody officer role and, for example, take decisions about charging and bail. However, the proposed arrangements allow the alternative of contacting a skilled and experienced custody officer, via video conferencing, who could significantly enhance the process by bringing his or her full knowledge and expertise to bear. 
 Amendments Nos. 252 and 253 suggest restricting telephone reviews and video conferencing decisions to circumstances where secure communications are available. That would place unrealistic restraints on the options. Remote decision taking can improve the quality of decisions by giving access to skilled and experienced custody officers to another station. That is why ACPO supports it and wants to use the new technology. 
 Telephone reviews of detention were relatively common practice before the judicial review last year. However, they are not as satisfactory as reviews where the reviewing officer has visual contact with the detainee, which is why we talk about exceptional circumstances.

Simon Hughes: I ask these questions in ignorance of the answer, so if the Minister can tell us it will help. First, is there a lowest rank of officer who, according to police guidelines or practice agreed across the country, must be present in a station or custody suite? Secondly, in relation to people held under the Terrorism Act 2000, is there also guidance on the minimum rank of officer who must be present or available to deal with people who are held in the custody suites designated for use by people held under the terrorism legislation?

Charles Clarke: I am advised that the lowest rank, in both cases, is normally sergeant, but I shall reflect on the issue before giving an authoritative answer. If there are no more questions, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: We are not satisfied with the Minister's answers. We believe that he is wrong. We pay tribute to the work of ACPO and the Police Superintendents Association. However, those more senior ranks are inevitably more concerned about cost—especially ACPO, which receives so little money from the Government that it is bound to be concerned about cost saving—whereas the Police Federation and inspectors at the sharp end of the work think that the Minister is wrong, as does Liberty.

Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: I will not give way, as I am being brief. We want to return to these matters on Report so, at this stage, I will not press our amendments.

Simon Hughes: I want to thank my colleagues who work behind the scenes—in particular, someone who has ``looked after'' me since I took over responsibility for home affairs, our senior home affairs researcher, Steve Radford, who was trained by Alex Carlile and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and is therefore well equipped to do the job of supporting me and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, for which we are grateful.
 I understand the Minister's reply about amendments Nos. 214 and 215, which would replace ``not reasonably practicable'' with ``extremely difficult'', and realise that there may not be a significant difference between the two. As he will understand, we tabled them as a marker in an attempt, in combination with other proposals, to make the clause more acceptable. Rather than take the Committee's time by pressing the amendment, I will ask leave to withdraw it. However, as I said, we will seek a Division on the clause, because we believe that it should not stand part of the Bill, in the hope that it will return in a different form.

Charles Clarke: In answer to an earlier intervention I gave the hon. Gentleman a partial answer. I want to make it clear that the custody officer must normally be a sergeant, but a lower ranking officer can act as custody officer when no one else is available.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister. If the Bill is passed containing that provision, there is an argument for a review of both the general rule—that the custody officer should normally be a sergeant—and the exceptional circumstances in which the officer can be of a lower rank. When we are considering custody with such powers, especially custody under the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000, there is a strong public and professional case for an officer of more senior rank to be available, even if not immediately on the premises at all times. With those comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I should like formally to move that the Programming Sub-Committee reconvene.

Roger Gale: I take the point of order, but not the motion, because there is no provision for any Committee member to move that that Committee reconvene. It is open to any member to request that that is done; it is up to the Chair to make the decision, so it is not a question of a vote.
Mr. Heald rose—

Roger Gale: No, it is all right. I have considered the matter carefully and taken advice; we are in slightly uncharted waters. Given the representations made to me, it appears to me proper to suspend the sitting. However, I have also been told that at present there is no cross-party agreement on the issue. Given the limited time that we have to discuss the remaining clauses that must be dealt with this morning under the terms of the timetable, I think that it would be inappropriate to suspend the Committee for long, because I have a duty to all members of the Committee to protect the time available. I therefore propose to suspend the Committee only until 12 o'clock. That will require the removal from the Room of all those who are not Members of Parliament. Any hon. Member is entitled to attend any meeting of any Programming Sub-Committee. What I am telling Committee members who are not members of the Sub-Committee is, ``Don't feel obliged to move, because if we finish before 12 o'clock, it would be helpful to have you here so that we can reconvene immediately.''
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

Roger Gale: Before we resume debate on the clauses, we have a formal motion from the Programming Sub-Committee for the Committee to consider and debate.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move,
 That the Programming Order of the Committee of 6th February, as amended by the order of the Committee of 1st March, be amended by leaving out lines 27 to 43 of the Table and inserting—
 13thClauses 70 to 761 pm 14thClauses 77 to 86, Schedule 4, Clauses 87 to 101, Schedule 5, Clauses 102 to 106, Schedule 6, Clauses 107 to 127, Schedule 7, Clauses 128 to 131, Schedule 8, Clause 132, new Schedules— 15thClause 77 to 86, Schedule 4, Clauses 87 to 101, Schedule 5, Clauses 102 to 106, Schedule 6, Clauses 107 to 127, Schedule 7, Clauses 128 to 131, Schedule 8, Clause 132, new Schedules.7 pm'' The motion is an effort by the Government to give more time along the lines requested by the Opposition. The change in the cut-off was specifically suggested by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. Our practice throughout the Committee has been to agree to whatever division of time seems appropriate to the Opposition. That was the whole concept of the programming motions. 
 I hope that we shall spend as much of our time as we can between now and 1 o'clock debating the substance of the Bill. We have spent a substantive time in debate on procedure away from the issues, as the Opposition will point out. There has been disagreement throughout about the end date of the Committee. The Government wanted 8 March and the Opposition consistently argued for an extra couple of sittings and an end date of 13 March. I will not reiterate the proposition that I made when we last discussed the programming resolution, but we have sought to deal with the Opposition's wishes by going even further than previously in proposing additional extensions. 
 We have always been ready to consider other time scales in the event that the usual channels could agree a time to reach certain business, because we thought it important that we covered the wide-ranging issues in the Bill as fully and comprehensively as possible. I do not intend to return to the acrimonious tone of some of our previous discussions. I can see no merit in doing so. You, Mr. Gale, have been clear in your injunctions towards us, which I respect given your role as Chair and because you are right. Doing so would not help us consider the legislation. 
 The Opposition moved an amendment in the Programming Sub-Committee that would have meant that the Committee's final sitting was on 13 March. The Government opposed it for the reason that we have done so throughout, which is that there is ample time to consider the issues in the Bill. I note that no decisions came to a vote when the guillotine fell yesterday. Debate was full on the whole issue. 
 There are disagreements, but the Government consider that they should be about the substance of the Bill. The Opposition appear to believe that they should be about the procedures of the House. I have said, on several occasions, that there are concerns about the working of the timetabling of Committees. Such concerns arose in relation to the Committee of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, where the proceedings of the Programming Sub-Committee were confidential. 
 I would have hoped that all members of the Committee could accept that we should consider the matter in a constructive way. We are committed to doing so. As we have said throughout, we are tied by the system that we have. We have to work within that system, and we are trying to get the maximum possible debate on all the important issues in the Bill, in answer to public interest and concern.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. These are important matters, and we should be paying attention to what is happening here. I want to ask for your guidance as to whether it is in order for members of the Committee to complete a large number of what appear to be Labour party birthday cards while they are attending the Committee. I believe that that is what the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) is doing.

Roger Gale: Members' conduct in Committee is entirely a matter for them. As far as I am aware, the House rules state only that Members may not consume food or drink in Committee other than water, and may not read newspapers. What Members do other than that is up to the Members concerned.

Oliver Heald: I shall be brief, because my concern and that of other Opposition Members is well known. Bills of this sort usually have more than 20 sittings. That is true of the Bill that became the Criminal Justice Act 1982, and it is true of the Bill that became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Bills of this length on such matters always have more time allocated to them than the Government have offered on this occasion. That is why we have consistently made the suggestion that the out date should be 13 March, not 8 March. That is based on a tight view on the amount of time that is required.
 No time has been wasted in this Committee, as I set out at column 346. We have been dealing with the matters, and yet yesterday we lost 25 clauses and 44 amendments. There was no debate on those measures at all. The Minister will say that we did not vote on them at the end. We could not. We were not allowed to vote on our amendments. Some 44 amendments were lost, because when the guillotine comes down, all the Opposition's amendments and new clauses fall. 
 We do not disagree with many of the principles behind the Bill, but we have points of detail to raise, which the Minister and his colleagues have, on numerous occasions, had to accept as good points. In the Sub-Committee today, we asked to sit all night, starting at 4.30 pm, because we want the time to scrutinise the Bill properly. That was rejected—the Minister would not wear it and he voted against it, as did other Labour Members. The change to the out date was also rejected. 
 Finally, it is true that, with the Minister offering an extra two hours tomorrow, I thought that it would be sensible if we completed consideration of the Bill only as far as the end of clause 76 by 1 pm today. However, I do not agree that the Committee should be guillotined, and I made that perfectly clear. I do not consent to the principle at all—I am adhering to it only out of desperation, because we want to do the best that we can with what is a cack-handed and useless way of scrutinising legislation, with inadequate time. The system is an insult to the Opposition. I know that the Minister thinks that we should all be jolly nice about the matter, but we feel very angry about it. We have been insulted and the whole system of parliamentary scrutiny has been traduced. That is wrong.

Nick Hawkins: I wish to adopt, without repeating it, what my hon. Friend has just said. I should like to make a further point. The Minister said, when the Committee was reconvened, that these were simply arguments about procedure, and not matters of substance. When I was elected to the House in 1992 and when I first stood for Parliament in 1987, I thought that I was coming to a democratic institution. All around the world, at the beginning of the 21st century, people are fighting, and in many cases dying, for parliamentary democracy. Last weekend, I was among those who heard a very brave young man who has been in jail for a long time for trying to bring about democracy in Burma. When, at the beginning of the 21st century, the Government tell us that the question whether elected Members of Parliament have the chance to conduct clause-by-clause, line-by-line scrutiny of important legislation on law and order—something vital to this House—is simply a matter of procedure, I can only agree with my hon. Friend that it is an abomination. We were not elected for this. If Labour Members of Parliament want to give their electorates an honest account, during the forthcoming election campaign, of what they have been doing, they should say, ``I have come to Parliament to be part of a Stalinist-style, rubber-stamping, so-called modernised Labour Government, who do not allow debate.''
 Even the simplest sixth form debating society would know that what is happening is an abomination, and a negation of democracy. All the members of the Labour party in this Room, from the Minister to the newest and most silent Back Benchers, should be ashamed of themselves.

Charles Clarke: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to comment on the long and consistent record of Conservative Governments of propping up dictatorships in, for example, southern Africa and South Africa, and of trying to negate democracy at every turn?

Roger Gale: Order. It would be helpful if hon. Members on both sides would try to concentrate on the Motion before the Committee. I rule out of order any further such interventions.

Nick Hawkins: I accept your ruling, Mr. Gale. All that I would say is that you were kind enough, the last time that a Programming Sub-Committee met, to propose that you should talk to the Chairmen's Panel and report, for further consideration by the House and the Modernisation Committee, the problem that even Front-Bench Members have—although it affects Back Benchers as well. That problem is the inability to vote, or even speak, despite being allowed to be present at a Programming Sub-Committee. Have you, since the last occasion when the Programming Sub-Committee was reconvened, had an opportunity to raise the matter?
 You may not feel it appropriate to comment further, but I consider that the recent reconvening made the difficulty known even more clearly than before. More members of the main Committee were able to be present, but only members of the Sub-Committee could speak.

Paul Clark: I am aware of your undertaking, Mr. Gale, to convey matters of concern that arose in previous discussions about programming in the Sub-Committee and in formal Standing Committee debates. We are aware of the Opposition's views about the issue of programming, which have been made abundantly clear and which you have agreed to take up.
 My impression of the workings of the Sub-Committee is that we have been willing to see what could be done. For example, if I recall correctly, the 10 o'clock guillotine would not have been set without a measure of agreement with the Opposition about the stage that we might reach by then. Last night's 10 o'clock guillotine would not otherwise have been arranged. 
 The proposal that my hon. Friend the Minister has made to continue until 7 o'clock tomorrow night is clearly sensible. However, it would be difficult for many of us to be present this afternoon. Perhaps the reason that the Opposition do not want to be in the Chamber this afternoon is that they do not want to hear the good news of the Budget.

Jackie Ballard: I agree with Conservative Members that we do not have enough time to do justice to the Bill in debate. That is why I voted in the Programming Sub-Committee for each of their proposals to extend the time available. However, now that we are under a guillotine for discussion of certain clauses, it is not necessary for every Conservative Member to repeat the argument.

Stephen McCabe: I simply want to observe that when the Committee turns its attention to scrutiny of the Bill we are making rather good progress, which is probably reflected in Hansard. The difficulty is that each performance by a Tory Member is punctuated by a political diatribe that takes up the Committee's time but has nothing to do with the substance of the Bill. If they could be encouraged to desist from such actions, we would make much more rapid progress.

James Gray: The reason why this half-hour debate is necessary—the hon. Member for Taunton said that we should not waste it—is because the Programming Sub-Committee's proceedings are not on record. Once again, I ask that they are reported. If they had been, the Minister's intemperate remarks, the most recent of which was an astonishing outburst about the Conservative Government keeping fascist people in power, which were most unministerial, would have been on the record—[Interruption.]

Roger Gale: Order.

James Gray: I hope that the Minister will raise that point because these half-hour debates would not then be necessary.
 We should ask Mr. Speaker to examine carefully the remarks made yesterday in the Chamber by the Advocate-General for Scotland. She is not involved in the Committee's proceedings or with the main stream of Home Office business. The fact that she chose to describe this Committee's activities as filibustering shows that it is a common view among Ministers.

Oliver Heald: Did my hon. Friend hear the Minister say clearly in the Programming Sub-Committee that there had been no filibustering in the Committee? Is that my hon. Friend's recollection of the exact words that the Minister used?

James Gray: Those are exactly the words that the Minister used.

Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: Perhaps in a moment, but the Minister has had his time. There is clearly a disagreement between the Minister and the Advocate-General for Scotland. That is a matter of history, but I hope that Mr. Speaker will examine carefully exactly what was said in the Chamber yesterday and what the Minister said in Committee today.

Charles Clarke: The record will show that what I said in response to the hon. Member for Taunton was that I believed that there had been no deliberate filibustering. I stand by what I said, and not by the words used by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire.

James Gray: I think that we are dealing with semantics. Saying that there was no deliberate filibustering seems to me be the same as saying that there was no filibustering. A filibuster must, by definition, be deliberate. There is no such thing as an undeliberate filibuster. The Minister is once again fiddling with words to try to justify the affront to democracy caused by the guillotine being brought to bear on the Committee's deliberations.
 Most significantly, we Opposition Members were prepared to come back to this Room at 4.30 pm and, if necessary, to discuss the Bill overnight. We do not make such suggestions lightly. Of course we would like to appear on our local radio stations to talk about the Budget and expose the absolute nonsense of the Chancellor's giveaway Budget, but we have been sent here to scrutinise this Bill. If necessary, and despite the fact that in these modernised days we do not crave it, we are ready to sit overnight, but the Minister is not. We are ready to extend the Committee's sittings until 13 March, but the Minister is not. 
 The Minister is prepared to do only two things. First—he will make a great show of it on Report—he generously gave us two extra hours. That is fantastic. Yesterday, we disposed of 93 clauses, 77 amendments, 37 Government amendments, 13 new clauses and nine Government new clauses that covered 13 pages of fine print. The Minister is prepared to give us two hours to discuss such matters further, but that is woefully inadequate. 
 Secondly, the Minister generously proposed to bring the guillotine forward, so the chop will now fall at clause 76 rather than later. That was generous of him; he agreed to give proper consideration today to a limited group of clauses, but we shall have only two extra hours tomorrow to deal with a total of about 65 clauses. It has not been suggested that tomorrow's sitting could be extended, so the outrage tomorrow will be even worse. We shall have to deal with 65 clauses, and goodness knows how many amendments or schedules will be rushed. The guillotine will fall at 7 pm because Labour Members will want to rush back to their constituencies. That is an outrage against Parliament. The Government should be ashamed of themselves.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am reluctant to enter the debate because the normal protocol is that Whips should remain silent in Committee. However, as you said earlier, Mr. Gale, we are in uncharted waters. I acknowledge your courtesy and the courtesy of your co-Chairman in dealing with the usual channels throughout our proceedings, but we are where we are because of the Opposition's view about the number of sittings that the Committee should have.

Oliver Heald: In the previous Parliament, we always gave far more time to deal with Bills than the hon. Gentleman is allowing. In this Parliament, we had 22 sittings to consider the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which had a similar number of clauses. In 1982, there were 25 sittings to consider the Criminal Justice Act 1982, a Bill of similar length. Why is the hon. Gentleman being so miserable as to allow us only 15 sittings? That is unacceptable; surely he feels ashamed of himself.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Certainly not. That intervention illustrates the problem that the Committee has faced because of the Opposition's deeply held view that the sittings motion did not offer ample time.
 Given what the hon. Member for Taunton said about making progress in the time that we have, I want to move on. I rise to speak because the usual channels, although courteous in discussion, have faced the problem that from the Opposition's point of view, we have not been given sufficient sittings. I noticed that the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip was around during the Programming Sub-Committee. I hate to say this, because the camaraderie among Whips is well known, but we have a new Opposition Whip who appears to take instruction from the Deputy Chief Whip on the basis of the Opposition's wider position on programming.

Roger Gale: Order. If I may say so, those black arts are rather removed from the substance of the motion before the Committee. It would be better if the matter were left there.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I just want to finish by placing the issue on the record.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman mentioned me. The presence of the Deputy Chief Whip was nothing to do with the fact that I have some six months standing in the Whips Office—quite a long time, compared with some Labour Whips—but was the result of the fact that he has seen from on high the disgraceful nature of what is occurring here today. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that throughout our discussions, at no stage have we disagreed? At no stage did the Government ask me for anything that we have not delivered. Throughout our discussions through the usual channels we have agreed entirely. At no stage have we had a disagreement in which I said, ``No, we won't do that.'' We have agreed to absolutely everything that the hon. Gentleman has asked me for.

Gerry Sutcliffe: As the Chairman has said, we will keep those discussions under the protocol that applies to them. I will not enter a discussion about who said what in the Corridor.

James Gray: You raised it.

Roger Gale: Order. Mr. Sutcliffe.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I feel that the issue raised in the Programming Sub-Committee of the number of sittings needs to be on the record. I believed that we had an agreement with an Opposition Whip about a hospital appointment that reduced the number of sittings. We entered into negotiations to put those sittings back. I am told by the Opposition that that was not their understanding. I acknowledge the spirit of what they are saying, but I want to place on the record the fact that I believed that I had an agreement with the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) when he was the Opposition Whip.

Crispin Blunt: This is a suitable moment to sit back and reflect on what nonsense the whole process has become. Yesterday, the Committee passed 25 clauses and the whole of part III without our being able to make any observations on them. The Minister has said that my contributions to the Committee have throughout our proceedings, without exception, been constructive and to the point. I hope that the Minister and Government Members will listen to my remarks, and I hope that you, Mr. Gale, will report back to the Chairman of Ways and Means. We are sent here to do a job, and one of the most important aspects of our jobs is properly to scrutinise legislation. We should take that responsibility seriously, but yesterday was farcical.
 I understand the proposal that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire made to the Programming Sub-Committee that we sit this afternoon and all through the night tonight. That is an effort to ensure that the Bill receives some sort of scrutiny. It is disgraceful that we are reduced to tabling such proposals. It is impossible to do our job properly and to give proper scrutiny to measures in such a way.

Stephen McCabe: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us of what benefit to scrutiny of the Bill were the following remarks by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins)?
 ``I think that what my hon. Friend intended to say was that the Labour party may superficially be pretending to be more respectable. Does he agree that the most interesting thing to come out of this debate was the hon. Member for Taunton pointing out that the most wonderful training for becoming a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament was hanging around on the streets doing little of any use?''——[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 1 March 2001; c. 406.]

Roger Gale: Order. If the hon. Gentleman sought to do so, I would rule him out of order. It is not relevant to the matter that we are discussing. Mr. Blunt.

Crispin Blunt: It is clear that such a complex Bill, with 130 clauses that deal with a considerable number of different matters, will require proper time to be debated. The Government showed the utmost arrogance by tabling a programming motion immediately after the Bill received its Second Reading. That was wrong. The Committee has proceeded in such a lamentable way because the Government have had to reconsider the whole process and come forward with a date for the end of the Bill's consideration in Committee. We have betrayed the duty that we owe the people of this country to scrutinise the Bill properly.
 If no end date is set for when a Bill's consideration must finish in Committee, people will be able to make a proper judgment of its proceedings, not least the Government Whips and the usual channels, and decide whether it has been scrutinised properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath cited the example of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, which comprises experts in a particular subject who will be affected by the Government's legislation. It is a serious, responsible organisation. It needed time to put together authoritative submissions to Committee members to enable those submissions to be turned into amendments, so that such views could be put forward. 
 We have done ourselves no credit. An extra two hours tomorrow is not sufficient time in which to consider the Bill properly. It should not be guillotined. Such action should be considered only when it becomes clear that Committee members are obstructing the Government in the proper execution of their duty. That has not happened. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Resolved, 
 That the Programming Order of the Committee of 6th February, as amended by the order of the Committee of 1st March, be amended by leaving out lines 27 to 43 of the Table and inserting—
 13thClauses 70 to 761 pm 14thClauses 77 to 86, Schedule 4, Clauses 87 to 101, Schedule 5, Clauses 102 to 106, Schedule 6, Clauses 107 to 127, Schedule 7, Clauses 128 to 131, Schedule 8, Clause 132, new Schedules— 15thClause 77 to 86, Schedule 4, Clauses 87 to 101, Schedule 5, Clauses 102 to 106, Schedule 6, Clauses 107 to 127, Schedule 7, Clauses 128 to 131, Schedule 8, Clause 132, new Schedules.7 pm'' The Chairman: We shall now return to consideration of the Bill. I was asked a question during that short debate. I shall make observations in due course to the Chairman of Ways and Means. He, in turn, will carry forward the views from members on both sides of the Committee to the Modernisation Committee. 
 Amendments made: No. 248, in page 59, line 17, leave out `section' and insert `subsection'. 
 No. 249, in page 60, line 37, after `in', insert `a'. 
 No. 250, in page 60, line 37, after `in', insert `a'.—[Mr. Hawkins.] 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 69, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:— 
 The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 72, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73 - Authorisation for delay in notifying arrest

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Oliver Heald: The clause downgrades the authorisation powers from superintendent rank to that of inspector. The inspectors central committee and the Police Federation are concerned about that because of the extra work load that will fall on inspectors. Figures given recently by the Minister show that the number of inspectors has fallen by 272 and the number of chief inspectors in England and Wales by 121 since March 1997. Those figures appeared in Hansard on 8 February, at column 663W.
 The Kent county constabulary inspectors' branch expressed the same concern in a letter to me. The letter states: 
 ``The reduction in numbers is not matched by any reduction in our members' workloads; indeed a parallel reduction in the numbers of Superintendents has resulted in increased responsibilities for fewer inspectors. Overstretching and overloading management does not make for good decision making or effective leadership.'' 
Will the Minister explain how inspectors will meet the challenge posed by the Bill of meeting extra responsibilities with fewer men?

Simon Hughes: We are uncomfortable with the idea of a downgrading of the rank of the police officer who must make the decision to delay the defendant's being allowed to notify someone of where he is and of his arrest. It is one of the issues that was considered comprehensively in the context of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Logically, it would be given comprehensive consideration if the Bill addressed the structure of the police to a significant degree. The reality is that the police have different capacities at different levels.
 The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire referred to figures on the number of inspectors. Inspectors have a particular concern about restructuring in the police, the number of inspectors in relation to the number of superintendents and so on. In different parts of the country, such as Northern Ireland, there is a different balance of people at different ranks. 
 We are uncomfortable with the Government's proposal being within a narrow review of certain issues. This part of the Bill is about changing the facility for dealing with people after they have been detained. That does not necessarily require a change in the status and rank of police officers, although I recognise that that gives the Government more flexibility. However, the burden is on the Government to justify it. Until they have done so, we are minded not to support the proposal.

Crispin Blunt: I also want to voice my concerns. I presume that the matter under discussion will arise only in rare circumstances. Therefore, the rank should not be downgraded to inspector. The structure of a superintendent in charge of a division within the Metropolitan police, or a chief superintendent in charge of an area that aligns with a borough, is roughly duplicated throughout the rest of the country. On the rare occasions when, having arrested someone, the substantial step of keeping that person in isolation is taken, it would be appropriate for the commanding officer of the particular police division to be informed. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister can convince me otherwise.

Charles Clarke: I am slightly surprised by the anxieties that have been expressed. It is right to articulate the trade union anxieties of the Police Federation and inspectors council, and it is good to discuss them in Committee, but the proposal is an important development.
 We favour more flexible and delayered management arrangements to place increased responsibility in the hands of police officers who are lower down the formal rank structure. We believe that that is characteristic of developments throughout public services, and it is a good way to proceed. We believe that allowing authorities to be granted by lower-ranking officers would speed up decision-making processes to the benefit of everyone involved. 
 Inspectors play a central management and command role in today's police service and already take on a wide range of PACE decisions. They are often the officers on the spot and are well placed to make decisions that may be urgent in an operational context. 
 We recognise that, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, it is important that decisions be made by officers of sufficient seniority to ensure that they are made on the basis of suitable knowledge, experience and authority. However, we believe that inspectors are likely to have a much more immediate knowledge of individual cases and will add that to the knowledge that they have acquired as inspectors, and the experience and authority that we believe puts them in an especially good position to make such decisions. 
 On the more general points about police numbers, there are significantly more inspectors than superintendents, which widens the ability to deal with the circumstances. Without returning to the party political badinage that goes on about the matter, police numbers in all forces are increasing after a long period of decline. However, I rest my argument not on that but on my belief that it is positively beneficial to have people of the rank of inspector—serious people—making key decisions with which they have the experience to deal and of which they know and understand the particular circumstances. We want to encourage and develop that trend throughout the police service to provide more flexibility in such aspects, as in other aspects of public service and life. 
 That is the reason behind the change. As I have said on several occasions, I understand the argument for a different, holistic approach, but I make the case that the best may be the enemy of the good.

Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister tell the Committee how often the procedure is used, so that we can have some idea of how often a superintendent will face such a request?

Charles Clarke: Not often, as the hon. Gentleman implied earlier. The criteria for delay have not been changed. They relate only to serious arrestable offences and situations in which reasonable grounds exist for believing that notification would lead to interference with evidence or witnesses or alerting other suspects not yet arrested. He is right to say that we do not envisage authorisation being widespread or significant. Nothing in the Bill changes the criteria involved.
 The hon. Gentleman's correct point does not devalue the importance of giving inspectors that authority. He mentioned in a rather commanding officer-type way that the superintendent should know what is being done in particular circumstances, which is correct. However, that is not the same as the superintendent doing it. Whether a commander of a London borough has such information relates to the force's management structures as much as simply specifying that everything must be referred to that level. I rest my case on the general proposition that to develop such experience at a wider range of responsibility levels in the force will be positively beneficial. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74 - Use of video links for proceedings about terrorism act detention

Oliver Heald: I beg to move amendment No. 255, in page 61, line 32, after `such', insert `secure'.

Roger Gale: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 256, in page 61, line 43, after `persons', insert `throughout the hearing'.
 No. 257, in page 61, line 44, at end insert `throughout the hearing'. 
 No. 258, in page 62, line 13, at end insert `; and— 
(c) it is not reasonably practicable in all the circumstances for the hearing to be conducted in the presence of the applicant to whom the application relates or of any legal representative of that person.'.
 No. 259, in page 62, line 14, at beginning insert— 
 `If a judicial authority gives a direction under sub-paragraph (4), it shall state its reaons for doing so when giving the direction; and'.

Oliver Heald: The clause allows video review of detention under the Terrorism Act 2000. Thanks to the Government's insistence on the point, a judicial process is now involved, rather than, as when we were in government, a Secretary of State's decision.
 I understand that the Liberal Democrats' view is that we should simply leave out the clause. Our amendments make various points, some of which we have already discussed. The first relates to the introduction of the concept of secure links. Anxiety has been expressed that such video links should not be capable of being intercepted by people who are up to no good. I should be grateful for any further assurances that the Minister can give us on that. 
 Amendments Nos. 256 and 257 would ensure that the judicial authority would be able to see and hear those making representations throughout the hearing. It would try to ensure that we replicate, as far as possible, the conditions in a judicial hearing. If one is trying to have a judicial process, the matter should be dealt with in a judicial way. 
 Amendment No. 258 would introduce a ``not reasonably practicable'' test for such hearings, making them fall into line with clause 72. Why is there currently no such test? Is it because the Government are considering making video reviews of detention under the Terrorism Act 2000 routine in almost all cases rather than having a physical review of detention? Is it a major change of policy? 
 Amendment No. 259 would force the judicial authority to give its reasons for a video hearing. Presumably, there would be a reason for the hearing to be conducted by video, unless the practice is to become routine. Given that courts are forced to provide reasons even for granting bail, surely a serious matter such as this would require a reason. 
 The Liberals have been close to Liberty in their preparations for the Committee, so I will leave it to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to make Liberty's points, but I believe that it has concerns about how the practice might work that should be aired at this stage.

Simon Hughes: We support the amendments tabled by the Conservative party, which would improve the drafting. Some of them attempt to put in lay or ordinary terms some of the things that one would expect should one go down this road. All of them seek to ensure that there can be the greatest confidence in the process compatible with keeping the clause as a whole.
 I declare an interest as the Member of Parliament for Liberty—its headquarters is based in my constituency, which is, after all, the centre of the world, as people have come to realise. I do not necessarily espouse all its views, but I am sympathetic to its work.

Charles Clarke: A dramatic departure.

Simon Hughes: Absolutely. I have been a member of Liberty in the past. I do not think that I am currently a paid-up member, although I will probably be told off after this debate for not being so. I assess on its merits each suggestion that Liberty makes, just as other colleagues would do. I have rejected some and supported others. The clause is questionable and requires either amendment or deletion for both procedural and substantial reasons. It is frustrating to spend time in Committee going through major legislation such as the Terrorism Act 2000, which has just become law, only to be amending that legislation two minutes later—two seconds in ``godspan'' time.
 There used to be a ban in local government on returning to a matter within six months of its being debated. We ought to introduce a rule whereby Governments need a two-thirds majority of Parliament, or both Houses, to amend a piece of legislation that they introduced in the preceding five years. There ought to be a self-denying ordinance. Legislation would be improved if the Government were precluded from returning to it. In the context of double jeopardy, we have been discussing how dangerous it is for people to think that if they fail to get a conviction first time, they may get one second time round. Governments should ensure that they get the law right the first time. If the same party is in office, it should not be able to come back to the matter. That is my objection on a ground of procedure. 
 I object, too, on a ground of substance. We took the view, as the Minister was kind enough to acknowledge, that any decisions that needed to be taken about an important change of procedure should be taken by a judge, not by a member or representative of the Executive. Therefore, it is more acceptable for a judicial authority than for any other authority to decide that representations may be made by televised link under this insertion into schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000. 
 Has any decision been made by the European Court of Human Rights that a fair trial is possible by video link? I am not aware of one. If it does not exist, I am surprised that the Government can be confident that the provisions will pass the test. There is a great difference between a decision being made by someone who is physically present—just as you are sitting here, Mr. Gale—and a decision being made by someone who is not present, but available only at the end of a telecommunications link. I realise that we live in a changing world and that people increasingly use that methodology . However, I am not sure that it is appropriate for a prisoner or defendant to communicate in such a way with the police or judicial authority simply because it is appropriate for two people in two different companies who are discussing a merger, or two members of a family living in different countries. 
 As the Minister conceded in the debate on terrorism, we seek to use the methods to which I have referred only for important matters, in a small of minority of cases, under particular powers given to the police and authorities when someone is arrested for what is regarded as a terrorist offence under the Terrorist Act 2000. Therefore, we should be careful that we allow the person the opportunity to attend judicial proceedings. 
 Will the Minister consider the amendments positively and think about accepting them? Will he answer the specific questions that I have asked about previous court judgments and respond to the strong views about the compatibility of the measures with the fair trial provisions? Finally, will he tell us in what circumstances Ministers envisage that the measures will be used? The trouble with such legislation is that it may be drawn up for use only in exceptional circumstances, but that, once the power is on the statute book, it can be used all the time. Judicial authority is required, but the police could easily go to the authority frequently, just as they go to magistrates for other permission regularly. 
 We need to know about the safeguards and the court decisions that may be precedents and why the Government cannot allow the normal procedures to be followed, especially in important cases.

Crispin Blunt: Why is the provision is necessary? I know that a similar provision was put in place for the armed services, under the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000. Did another set of circumstances arise for which it was thought to be needed?

Charles Clarke: The origin of the measures is in the Terrorism Bill proceedings.
 The five-year moratorium is a dangerous doctrine, but an appropriately conservative one for the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to adopt. Given the pace of change in relation to technology and other things, a five-year block would be difficult to deal with. 
 As the hon. Gentleman will recall, much debate was devoted to the subject during consideration of the Terrorism Bill. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) told us at length and entertainingly how, when he was a Minister in the Home Office, he tried hard to get the Conservative Government to introduce video hearings. However, that attempt was blocked by the lawyers—his Government colleagues, in fact—who thought that the quill pen was pushing technology too far and that video could not be used. I said that the Government accepted his points because we thought that that was the correct direction. That was said in Committee and on Report, and the clause represents a progression of that approach. 
 We thought that it was important to consult on the matter, rather than just to implement it. That is why we did not introduce it earlier. The decision has come from a good process. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Reigate, we did not decide that we should introduce video for a specific reason, but we believe that it is increasingly necessary to be able to use video in this way. 
 The amendments would bolster the rights of a suspect by ensuring that his or her interests are safeguarded during judicial extension hearings that are conducted by video and limiting the discretion of a judicial authority to use video links. 
 Amendment No. 255 would ensure that video links are secure. That is laudable, given the need to protect intelligence, but the security of the system can be adequately covered by the Secretary of State's quality assurance. That is the way to proceed, rather than by changing the Bill. I give the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire an absolute assurance that we take the matter seriously, and the quality assurance will ensure that. 
 Amendments Nos. 256 and 257 would ensure that the detainee's right to be seen and heard, and to see and hear, is adequate throughout the hearing. I share that laudable aim, but the changes in wording would not strengthen the clause, which is clear, because it carries no implications that that right is qualified in any way or applies to only one part of the hearing. We share the approach of amendments Nos. 255 to 257 but think that the current wording is better. 
 The situation with respect to amendments Nos. 258 and 259 is different. Amendment No. 258 would ensure that the use of video links is exceptional. That is not the policy aim of the clause, which is to make the use of video links a normal rather than an exceptional event, subject to the discretion of the judicial authority. Video links should be introduced for a number of reasons, some of which are cost saving—I know that that is the only thing that interests the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. However, in many parts of the country, they would also make it more convenient to bring people into the judicial system rapidly and effectively. 
 Amendment No. 258 presumes that the hearing will be held in person and only held by video in exceptional circumstances. Clause 74 is not unprecedented, as similar provisions exist in the bail and immigration fields. The amendment would undermine the central policy goal of the clause, which, although I am open to correction, I do not believe that the Conservatives oppose—that is why I cited the attempts of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border.

Oliver Heald: We are obviously keen for proper protections to be in place. Will the Minister explain why clause 74 provides for the routine use of video links while clause 72 makes such use exceptional?
 Mr. Clarke: Because we are talking about different circumstances. Clause 72 applies to specific circumstances relating to detention, which require various protections. That is an exceptional process. However, the situation that we are currently discussing is quite different.

Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke: I will finish what I am going to say about amendment No. 259 and then I will give way.
 Amendment No. 259 would change the presumption on the use of video links. It would require the judicial authority to give reasons for the use of such links as well as for a decision to take the hearing in person. That would mean that the judicial authority would have to give reasons in every case. The policy aim is for the presumption of the use of video links, for the reasons that I have stated.

Oliver Heald: Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke: I will give way to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and then to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire before I mention the European convention.

Simon Hughes: Will the Minister elaborate on the host of reasons why he thinks that video links should be the main policy aim? They are a less personal and less effective method of ensuring direct contact between the authority and detainee under the detention and arrest provisions in clause 72, but they should be more exceptional in respect of terrorism, which is more rare, more serious and more important. It should not be the norm that terrorism detention decisions should be taken by video link. That is a bad policy objective. Such decisions should be taken in a face-to-face arrangement, except in exceptional circumstances.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is right in a sense. I do not want to undermine him, but we want a greater use of video in such proceedings. I understand his point about safeguards, which he has made consistently. We have established effective safeguards. We are worried, however, that amendments Nos. 258 and 259 would erect a further set of hurdles, which would make matters more difficult to deal with.

Oliver Heald: Clauses 72 and 74 are both about detention. Clause 72 covers terrorists and a slightly different procedure. Is there something about terrorism and the way in which terrorist suspects are detained that means that video links would be useful? Is there a practical reason why it would be good to take such action all the time, whereas it should be exceptional in ordinary cases? What is the difference?

Charles Clarke: The fundamental point is that clause 72 detainees will be in the police station and such cases will be reviewed by the police officer. As for clause 74, in the case of a review by a judge under the Terrorism Act 2000, significant issues are raised by transferring the terrorist suspect to court, and that raises serious issues that make the use of videos beneficial. The overall use of video links will prevent detainees from spending longer overall in custody, due to their having to spend long periods of travelling to the judicial authority, who may be some distance away. That is a significant factor.
 The right to appear before a judicial authority guaranteed by article 53 of the European convention of human rights can be delivered effectively through video links, which facilitate the right to make all representation when the detainee chooses to exercise it. The convention rights around which the judicial extension provisions are designed are set out in the Schiesser judgment, with which the hon. Gentleman, as a lawyer, will be familiar. The relevant right is to appear and for the judicial authority to be able to hear for himself or herself both sides of the argument. Appearance can be facilitated by video link. The key issue will be about the quality and security of the system, to which I referred earlier. I urge that the amendment be withdrawn.

Oliver Heald: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 - Codes of practice

Amendment proposed: No. 260, in page 63, line 10, leave out paragraph (a).—[Mr. Heald.]

Charles Clarke: I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment if it is not withdrawn. It would undermine the whole purpose of clause 76, which is to provide a more straightforward mechanism for changes to the codes.

Oliver Heald: A fuller explanation is required from the Minister and, given that he has not been willing to give one, I shall not withdraw the amendment.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till tomorrow at five minutes to Ten o'clock.